• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Silly Question

F

Firefighter194

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
9
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Ok this question might seem silly/dumb, but I was wondering something.

If I was walking thru my neighbor hood walking my dog ($500 pure bred yellow lab) and a stray dog was tostart attacking myslef or my dog what is the law pertaining to protecting myself and my property (dog) against the aggressive animal with my side arm, if there was no other options?

I have heard of LEO's usingthere side arms to protect themselves from aggressive dogs/animals.

What is everyones take on this?
 
K

KodiakISGOOD

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
353
Location
Springfield, Va, , USA
imported post

you cannot use deadly force to protect property (your dog), however if you could articulate that you were in fear for your life or serious bodily harm, then deadly force is usually justified.

that's my take on it

happy carrying,


jason
 
taurusfan

taurusfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
307
Location
Richmond, ,
imported post

The dog would have to be threatening deadly force wouldn't it? and if you kill it, you may still be sued by its owner.

I think it's better to carry a dog repellant like a mailman you don't want to kill a dog.

It's attacking you but could be dearly loved by someone else.
 
S

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,141
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

First off, it's not a silly question. A dog attacking your dog could very well attack you, too.

Secondly, although it's probably the correct answer, it appears various members went off half cocked by not citing any applicable law. If the Commonwealth of Virginia is anything like the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (us commonwealths have to stick together against the other states), there's probably something buried in the agriculture/animal husbandry statutes. Pennsylvania's law on such is as follows:

3 Pa. C.S. § 501, KILLING DOGS; DOGS AS NUISANCES[/b]

(a) LEGAL TO KILL CERTAIN DOGS[/b] - Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing or wounding or killing any domestic animal, wounding or killing other dogs, cats or household pets, or pursuing, wounding or attacking human beings, whether or not such a dog bears the license tag required by the provisions of this act. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing.



 
ChinChin

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Most locals in VA have leash laws. If a dog is off its leash and wandering loose, it’s a hazard. If it begins attacking you and it’s not a small dog which you can simply punt away like a Chihuahua, but a pittbull or a Rottweiler, then you can easily make the argument that YOU felt you were in immediate threat of bodily injury and/or death, and in order to stop and control the situation you were forced to shoot the dog to defend your life.

Then you take out your toss-down, plant it next to the dead dog and tell the responding officers that the dog was reaching. . .and it was kill or be killed!! (ok, that last part was from The Shield, and I don't recommend doing that. . .but watching it was damn funny!)
 
kimbercarrier

kimbercarrier

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
721
Location
hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

Just to let you know, Hampton does not have a leash law. I was told this by an officer when I called about people who would walk and take their dog with them. They let it run loose and crap in everyone's yard.

She said they let people think that because it keeps people from letting their dogs run loose.
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Virginia law is relatively silent on the matter. A quick search provided the following:

§ 3.1-796.127. Dogs and cats deemed personal property; rights relating thereto.

All dogs and cats shall be deemed personal property and may be the subject of larceny and malicious or unlawful trespass. Owners, as defined in § 3.1-796.66, may maintain any action for the killing of any such animals, or injury thereto, or unlawful detention or use thereof as in the case of other personal property. The owner of any dog or cat which is injured or killed contrary to the provisions of this chapter by any person shall be entitled to recover the value thereof or the damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such person.

An animal control officer or other officer finding a stolen dog or cat, or a dog or cat held or detained contrary to law, shall have authority to seize and hold such animal pending action before a general district court or other court. If no such action is instituted within seven days, the animal control officer or other officer shall deliver the dog or cat to its owner.

The presence of a dog or cat on the premises of a person other than its legal owner shall raise no presumption of theft against the owner, and the animal control officer may take such animal in charge and notify its legal owner to remove it. The legal owner of the animal shall pay a reasonable charge as the local governing body by ordinance shall establish for the keep of such animal while in the possession of the animal control officer.

(1984, c. 492, § 29-213.95; 1987, c. 488; 1988, c. 537; 1998, c. 817.)

§ 18.2-403.1. Offenses involving animals - Class 1 misdemeanors.

The following unlawful acts and offenses against animals shall constitute and be punished as a Class 1 misdemeanor:

1. Violation of subsection A of § 3.1-796.122 pertaining to cruelty to animals, except as provided for second or subsequent violations in that section.

2. Violation of § 3.1-796.69 pertaining to transporting animals under certain conditions.

3. Making a false claim or receiving money on a false claim under § 3.1-796.118 pertaining to compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs.

4. Violation of § 3.1-796.83:1 pertaining to boarding establishments and groomers as defined in § 3.1-796.68.

(1984, c. 492; 1992, c. 177; 1993, c. 174; 1996, c. 249; 1999, c. 620.)

Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal.


Virginia allows for the killing of dogs found to be killing livestock or fowl, but you pet pooch does not fit the definition of "livestock" as contained in the Code of Virginia.

It seems that unless you sue the owner of the dog who was attacking YOU, you could end up paying the owner of the attacking dog what he can prove was the value of the beast. (And the owner of the attacking dog could counter-sue.) The only other possibility would be to prove that the dog was trained to attack and seek a warrant against the owner for that offense.

Even if you prove that the dog was a "viscious dog" as defined in the law, all you can do is sue to recover damages.

Thanks for asking.


stay safe.

skidmark
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

KodiakISGOOD wrote:
SNIP you cannot use deadly force to protect property (your dog), however if you could articulate that you were in fear for your life or serious bodily harm, then deadly force is usually justified.
Click to expand...

Justrhetorical sorts of questions.

Would it really be deadly force to shoot the bad dog? If your dog is only property, would not the other dog be, at best, property, too?
 
V

vmathis12019

State Researcher
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
544
Location
Troy, Alabama, USA
imported post

To extend the diversion, and hopefully end it, I would like to add:

I can see where you're coming from. As a dog owner, and relatively compassionate human being, the idea of any living creature being "shot in the face, a lot" is tough to swallow. Perhaps part of the psychological adjustment to carrying is becoming slightly more callous to this sort of thing? It seems to me that if the dog is threatening me or my property (my dog), I'm going to shoot it in the face, a lot. While I don't think you are being overly squeamish in thinking the comment was too graphic, I DO think that it is necessary for all of us at some point to face the bitter truth of WHY we carry handguns. It ain't because it brings out the color of our eyes. It's a tool for a purpose, and that purpose is sometimes a tough one to swallow.
 
S

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

vmathis12019 wrote:
To extend the diversion, and hopefully end it, I would like to add:

I can see where you're coming from. As a dog owner, and relatively compassionate human being, the idea of any living creature being "shot in the face, a lot" is tough to swallow. Perhaps part of the psychological adjustment to carrying is becoming slightly more callous to this sort of thing? It seems to me that if the dog is threatening me or my property (my dog), I'm going to shoot it in the face, a lot. While I don't think you are being overly squeamish in thinking the comment was too graphic, I DO think that it is necessary for all of us at some point to face the bitter truth of WHY we carry handguns. It ain't because it brings out the color of our eyes. It's a tool for a purpose, and that purpose is sometimes a tough one to swallow.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I just thought it was overly-gratuitous, and reflected poorly on people who carry. I think we're all peaceful people who avoid confrontations and talking about shooting things "in the face, a lot" seems unnecessary.

I'll try not to say too much more because I know that half the people reading this right now are going "SO WHAT?! :banghead:"
 
paramedic70002

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
imported post

"Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?
 
H

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

If the attacking dog kills your dog it can attack you, can it not?

Enough justification right there.

Animals lack logic or reason. A dog charging at you armed with teeth isn't something friendly.
 
M

mobeewan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
652
Location
Hampton, Va, ,
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
FightingGlock19 wrote:
shoot the dog in the face, a lot
Click to expand...
Is that kind of gratuitous comment necessary? Am I just overly squeamish? If I am, let me know. I think this kinda thing reflects bad on us.
Click to expand...
I would have said "shoot the dog in the head as many times as needed to stop the attack". Shooting it in the face may only wound it and make it suffer more until it does die.

If I only have a knife then I would offer the dog my left arm. While it is busy with the left arm I would gut it with my knife in my right hand.
 
M

mobeewan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
652
Location
Hampton, Va, ,
imported post

glockfan wrote:
The dog would have to be threatening deadly force wouldn't it? and if you kill it, you may still be sued by its owner.

I think it's better to carry a dog repellant like a mailman you don't want to kill a dog.

It's attacking you but could be dearly loved by someone else.
Click to expand...

I used to carry pepper spray and a firearm. I didn't want to have to explain why I had to protect myself with the gun instead of the non lethal peper spray. It is harder to justify shooting someone when you have an alternative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top